I admire and agree with many of the actions of the ALF. I've often read of other members here who have also spoken out in favor of the ALF's illegal actions only to be viciously attacked by other members (as well as the "mods" for crying out loud!!!) for their opinions. I have not attacked other members here and have attacked ONLY criminal ACTIONS. I object to having my opinions denigrated and "attacked" for no other reason than those actions being illegal.

I do NOT engage in illegal or unethical actions and yet I am attacked by people who openly admit to crimes of horrific animal abuse. And, the owner and moderators of this forum actually protect the admitted criminals, because, they claim, the admitted criminals are members of this forum. They take the side of those members who admit to being criminals against those members who only agree with certain illegal actions.

If you're going to make up an arbitrary new rule that says I cannot openly disagree with and attack illegal animal cruelty (that used to be legal, whatever the hell THAT means!) isn't it time to make up a rule that covers other illegal actions that might have been legal in the past? If you're going to protect one group of criminals because they're members here, isn't it only fair to protect other members who live inside the law but agree with OTHER illegal actions? And, if you're going to demand that common criminals be treated with respect, what about actual members of the ALF who might also be members of this forum? Are you going to protect ALL criminals or only the ones with whom you agree?

During the past couple of days, I've gotten PM's from other members in which they talked about having to "shut up and suck up" to the owner and "mods", or be warned, deleted, edited or even banned. Just once, I'd like to see the "mods" of this forum be honest and fair in their actions. Just once, I'd like to see the "mods" have the gumption to face up to their own hypocrisy and let this post stand without immediately being deleted or edited.

I realize that many many others have been through this before me. And, I realize that the "mods" just go on doing as they wish with no thought as to what is right or fair. Just once, I'd like to see this issue treated fairly and without childish censure. Quit being so afraid of letting people state their opinions. Quit acting like little gods in your own little world and understand this is ONLY an internet forum.

(I wonder how long it will take the "mods" to delete this one, or will they dishonestly delete the parts they don't like ...? I believe this is a fair and reasonable question but I wouldn't be surprised to come back later to find I'm banned that post gone.)

I admire and agree with many of the actions of the ALF. I've often read of other members here who have also spoken out in favor of the ALF's illegal actions only to be viciously attacked by other members (as well as the "mods" for crying out loud!!!) for their opinions. I have not attacked other members here and have attacked ONLY criminal ACTIONS. I object to having my opinions denigrated and "attacked" for no other reason than those actions being illegal.

I do NOT engage in illegal or unethical actions and yet I am attacked by people who openly admit to crimes of horrific animal abuse. And, the owner and moderators of this forum actually protect the admitted criminals, because, they claim, the admitted criminals are members of this forum. They take the side of those members who admit to being criminals against those members who only agree with certain illegal actions.

If you're going to make up an arbitrary new rule that says I cannot openly disagree with and attack illegal animal cruelty (that used to be legal, whatever the hell THAT means!) isn't it time to make up a rule that covers other illegal actions that might have been legal in the past? If you're going to protect one group of criminals because they're members here, isn't it only fair to protect other members who live inside the law but agree with OTHER illegal actions? And, if you're going to demand that common criminals be treated with respect, what about actual members of the ALF who might also be members of this forum? Are you going to protect ALL criminals or only the ones with whom you agree?

During the past couple of days, I've gotten PM's from other members in which they talked about having to "shut up and suck up" to the owner and "mods", or be warned, deleted, edited or even banned. Just once, I'd like to see the "mods" of this forum be honest and fair in their actions. Just once, I'd like to see the "mods" have the gumption to face up to their own hypocrisy and let this post stand without immediately being deleted or edited.

I realize that many many others have been through this before me. And, I realize that the "mods" just go on doing as they wish with no thought as to what is right or fair. Just once, I'd like to see this issue treated fairly and without childish censure. Quit being so afraid of letting people state their opinions. Quit acting like little gods in your own little world and understand this is ONLY an internet forum.

(I wonder how long it will take the "mods" to delete this one, or will they dishonestly delete the parts they don't like ...? I believe this is a fair and reasonable question but I wouldn't be surprised to come back later to find I'm banned that post gone.)

You have not been attacked. This is a debate board. If you are looking only for responses that agree with your opinions or support them, you will have to find that else where. Otherwise, disagreeing with your opinions, views and ideals is not considered an attack.

I cannot help you with your position if you continuously choose to attack, bait and insult other members of this forum. If you wish your situation with the other posters to improve then I suggest you hold yourself to a higher level of interaction than has been shown by you in the past.

I did not say I "wish your situation with the other posters to improve".

Of course, I've been attacked (as recently as this morning) but that's not the point and not really important to THIS issue. Please do not try to make it about that.

Please re-read the bold portion of my op ...

If you're going to allow and encourage one group of members to admit to and take apparent pride in engaging in illegal actions, then why not another? And, why shouldn't members be able to applaud the criminals they agree with?

(Please note that I am very carefully abiding by Wayne's new rule of yesterday by not actually naming the illegal action or those who openly engage in it.)

The essence of what I'm asking for is that all points of view and all posters be treated the same.

I did not say I "wish your situation with the other posters to improve".

Of course, I've been attacked (as recently as this morning) but that's not the point and not really important to THIS issue. Please do not try to make it about that.

Please re-read the bold portion of my op ...

If you're going to allow and encourage one group of members to admit to and take apparent pride in engaging in illegal actions, then why not another? And, why shouldn't members be able to applaud the criminals they agree with?

(Please note that I am very carefully abiding by Wayne's new rule of yesterday by not actually naming the illegal action or those who openly engage in it.)

The essence of what I'm asking for is that all points of view and all posters be treated the same.

No barb what you are trying to do is manipulate what Wayne said to fit your senario. Read the rules they are very clear and in black and white. If you have a personal or ethical issues with other members on this board, or are unable to interact in a civil and adult manner because of your issues then you always have the choice not to post here. If you cannot present your views on the topics without attacking posters, that again is your issue.

Just to help you out....I copied a portion of the rules for you. If you need further clarification on this let me know and I will try to help you.

Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users. Typical back and forth on the issues is expected and encouraged. But, please discuss the issues in a way that that is respectful to others. Differences of opinion are fine, but please agree to disagree in order to avoid flame wars. No personal attacks, no vendettas and no detrimental venting will be tolerated and efforts should be made to avoid stereotyping other users. Users are encouraged to approach discussions and debates with the goal of finding mutual understanding and respect. We will not tolerate excessive rudeness, overly insulting posts, personal attacks or purposeless inflammatory posts. Our decision is final in these matters.

IOW, you'll go on making up new rules to protect admitted criminals while allowing -

Oh never mind.

I'm not surprised at all.

Like I said barb ....the rules are in black and white. No one has changed anything.

Not really.

The new "rules" that Wayne quoted do not appear anywhere. Not even close. And, if his new rule about whether or not an action used to be legal were a true rule for the entire board, you would not allow members to attack those who are in favor of such things as ALF actions. Obviously, that was just a ploy to to protect that crime which we cannot name. A very similar ploy was used to attack Paul Watson for something he hadn't even done!

Really - never mind. You will continue to treat different members with differing rules and standards. Its well know that that is the true hallmark of this board and its not likely to change any time soon.

IOW, you'll go on making up new rules to protect admitted criminals while allowing -

Oh never mind.

I'm not surprised at all.

Like I said barb ....the rules are in black and white. No one has changed anything.

Not really.

The new "rules" that Wayne quoted do not appear anywhere. Not even close. And, if his new rule about whether or not an action used to be legal were a true rule for the entire board, you would not allow members to attack those who are in favor of such things as ALF actions. Obviously, that was just a ploy to to protect that crime which we cannot name. A very similar ploy was used to attack Paul Watson for something he hadn't even done!

Really - never mind. You will continue to treat different members with differing rules and standards. Its well know that that is the true hallmark of this board and its not likely to change any time soon.

Wayne was referring to sterotyping when it is in any way involving or inclusive of posters here. Where as you wish to continue to argue an issue whereas you do not even feel rules apply to yourself is hypocritical. As is your attacking members of this board directly or by means of sterotyping, which is a clear violation of this board. I suggest that if you wish to complain about anything you should at the very least not be in a position of hypocracy.

Again, I am sorry that opposing views and questions about your position on issues upsets you but those are not violations. I suggest you focus on the topics and and steer away from making them personal.

Like I said barb ....the rules are in black and white. No one has changed anything.

Not really.

The new "rules" that Wayne quoted do not appear anywhere. Not even close. And, if his new rule about whether or not an action used to be legal were a true rule for the entire board, you would not allow members to attack those who are in favor of such things as ALF actions. Obviously, that was just a ploy to to protect that crime which we cannot name. A very similar ploy was used to attack Paul Watson for something he hadn't even done!

Really - never mind. You will continue to treat different members with differing rules and standards. Its well know that that is the true hallmark of this board and its not likely to change any time soon.

Wayne was referring to sterotyping when it is in any way involving or inclusive of posters here. Where as you wish to continue to argue an issue whereas you do not even feel rules apply to yourself is hypocritical. As is your attacking members of this board directly or by means of sterotyping, which is a clear violation of this board. I suggest that if you wish to complain about anything you should at the very least not be in a position of hypocracy.

Again, I am sorry that opposing views and questions about your position on issues upsets you but those are not violations. I suggest you focus on the topics and and steer away from making them personal.

I might add the factor of the inclusion of the members of the board in a group being known. In the case of ALF there are no members who claim to be an active member of this unofficial group, but there are a few who have claimed active participation in animal fighting when it was still legal. Thus, statements concerning legal actions of the ALF, would not apply to any known board member, but statements concerning the legal actions of animal fighters would apply to known board members.

If one were to say animal rehabbers were some low life term, that would be an attack on members of the board who are followign legal actions. If the same statement were made against the illegal actions of some or all rehabbers it would not be an attack on the person, but of the action and would be neither a personal attack or sterotype.

A disagreement is not an attack, in any case.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

A very similar ploy was used to attack Paul Watson for something he hadn't even done!

Also, public figures, such as Mr. Watson, are not subject to the same level of protection as a private person due to their public persona. Thus, more lattitude would be allowed in the discussion of such a public person, but there are limits to what is acceptable and this too has been an applied rule for as long as I can remember.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

A very similar ploy was used to attack Paul Watson for something he hadn't even done!

Also, public figures, such as Mr. Watson, are not subject to the same level of protection as a private person due to their public persona. Thus, more lattitude would be allowed in the discussion of such a public person, but there are limits to what is acceptable and this too has been an applied rule for as long as I can remember.

Cool.

AL "answers" without ever even touching on the actual question I asked and you "answer" with a bunch excuses and loopholes.

Bottom line is what is posted is judged not by the content but rather by the author. That's okay though. Its your little playground and you can change and re-interpret the rules on a daily basis if you like.

Let's try this again..... with Paul Watson he is a SELF-PROCLAIMED pirate and also also claimed some and been prosecuted for some illegal actions he just feels what he is doing is justified. The same goes for ALF. They claim responsibility for illegal actions on a regular basis but again they feel they are justified.So this is not really applicable to the example you wish to make it.

Since ALF has no members by their own claim there is no possible way that a member of ALF is a poster here. As for Paul Watson, he is not an active member of this board.

But barb what you are refusing to deal with, conveniently, is your behavior and trying to divert/put the focus everywhere else is quite obvious.

Let's try this again..... with Paul Watson he is a SELF-PROCLAIMED pirate and also also claimed some and been prosecuted for some illegal actions he just feels what he is doing is justified. The same goes for ALF. They claim responsibility for illegal actions on a regular basis but again they feel they are justified.

And, this describes PERFECTLY what members here whom we are not allowed to name who engage in that illegal action that we are not allowed to name have said -

They feel they are justified in breaking certain animal cruelty laws.

Amazingly, Envirolink agrees. You've said it over and over again - Envirolink supports illegal animal cruelty and protects criminals of your choosing.

I give up. So many members and ex-members have gone through this same nonsense and nothing changed. You will go on changing the rules and judging members by who they are rather than what they say. That is not going to change. So - ** shrug ** --- Let it go.

Let's try this again..... with Paul Watson he is a SELF-PROCLAIMED pirate and also also claimed some and been prosecuted for some illegal actions he just feels what he is doing is justified. The same goes for ALF. They claim responsibility for illegal actions on a regular basis but again they feel they are justified.

And, this describes PERFECTLY what members here whom we are not allowed to name who engage in that illegal action that we are not allowed to name have said -

They feel they are justified in breaking certain animal cruelty laws.

Amazingly, Envirolink agrees. You've said it over and over again - Envirolink supports illegal animal cruelty and protects criminals of your choosing.

I give up. So many members and ex-members have gone through this same nonsense and nothing changed. You will go on changing the rules and judging members by who they are rather than what they say. That is not going to change. So - ** shrug ** --- Let it go.

I don't keep bringing it up. My suggestion to you is you just worry about your own behavior and your own compliance issues. And try to discuss just the issues and not make personal judgments on other posters.